Date of Filling: 15.02.2017
Date of Disposal: 26.10.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
THIRUVALLUR-1
PRESENT: THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M. ….PRESIDENT
THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., …MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.15/2017
FRIDAY, THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
N.Ravishankar,
S/o.R.Nandagopal,
No.18/17, Salaiyar Street,
Mandhaivelu,
Chennai -600 028. …Complainant.
//Vs//
1. Executive Engineer,
(O&M) Chengalpattu,
Distribution system)
Sriperumbudur – 602 105.
2.Assistant Engineer,
(O&M) Chengalpattu,
Distribution System)
Veppampattu, Thiruvallur Taluk,
3.Thiru. OM Kumar,
Assessor, Veppampattu,
Thiruvallur Taluk. …….opposite parties
This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us 23.10.2018 in the presence of Thiru. N.Ravishankar, who has appeared in person and Thiru. J. Bala, Counsel for the opposite parties and upon hearing arguments having perused the documents and evidences this Forum delivered the following.
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to cancell the order to pay the amount a sum of Rs.14,967/- with R.C. and BPSC and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party 1to3.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of the Terraced house bearing plot No.22, Annai Velankanni Nagar, Veppampattu, Thiruvallur Taluk the S.Cs No.551-001-452 and 551-110-1347 are the two electric service connections which have been over assessed for the month May 2015 (25.05.2015) when according to the opposite party’s consumer card 1120 units was consumed Rs.5,562/- was paid. The complainant complained about it. A new meter was installed and on 25.07.2015 a similar sum of Rs.4,678/- was sought to be collected and the complainant paid it.
3. That, actually for the next bimonthly readings 23.09.2015 only Rs.30/- for 10units and 23.11.2015 similar Rs.30/- was collected for Sc.No.551-001-452. The amounts were remitted up to 23.01.2016. The computer recordings were made and found Rs.14,967/- with R.C., BPSC is to be paid.
4. The reading is only for the period up to Dec.2015. But the complainant has already remitted as per consumer card. The disparity is due to the 2nd opposite party for wrong fixation of meter in June 2015 and false collection from the complainant Rs.4,678/-. The 2nd opposite party did not give the correct meter no fixed during June 15th. Regarding S.C.No.1347 from 23.09.2015 till 17.03.2016, no bimonthly reading was taken and recorded by the 3rd opposite party because of which the complainant had to shell out Rs.3644/- in one lump sum for 730/- unit which is unwananted.
5. Again on 17.01.2016 there was an enquiry by the 1st opposite party and he has asked the complainant to pay Rs.14,967/- with R.C.BPSC charges. While he has admitted that there is fault in fixing the new meter and reading, the 1st opposite party has fired to wean away his juniors from the clutches of law. The act of the opposite parties1to3 clearly shows that the deficiency of service and caused mental agony and physical strain. Hence this complaint.
6. The contention of written version of the 2nd opposite party and adopted by 1st and 3rd opposite parties is briefly as follows:-
All the allegations in the complaint are all denied as false except those are admitted herein. This complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts and its liable to be dismissed in illumine.
7. It is admitted that S.C.S.No.551-001-452 and 551-001-1347 are the two service connections in the name of the complainant. It is denied that they are over assessed for the month of May 2015 (on 25.05.2015). As per the opposite party’s consumer card and for S.C.No.551-001-452 units was consumer 1120 units and the amount wrongly mentioned in the complaint as 5,562/- instead Rs.6,222/-. It is stated that there is no fault in the meter. The meter is in good and working condition. The meter was changed only on 09.06.2015 the complainant wrongly stated in the complaint that the meter was changed and new meter was installed on 25.07.2015 and similar sum of rs.4,678/- was paid by complainant is not at all correct. It is totally false to state that the meter changed on 25.07.2015.
8. As per the TNEB order, all the old meters in the state of Tamil Nadu was changed and new static meter with M.D. specifications was installed on 23.09.2015. It is stated that the amount Rs.14,967/- was not paid by him till date and Rs.14,967/- has to be paid for 2810 units for the month of January to May 2016. There is no disparity of wrong doing by the 2nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant. There is also no false collection from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party was doing his duty correctly during June 2015 and there is no deficiency of service and cheating the complainant as alleged in the complaint.
9. The allegations invented for the purpose of filing this false complainant as against the opposite parties. Regarding S.C.No.1347 from 2309.2015 till 17.03.2016 there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. Actually, the complainant was not paid the reading amount correctly and it was disconnected on 19.01.2016 and the complainant paid the amount on 23.01.2016 and the service connection restored on 23.02.2016, because of the fault of the complainant. The reading is 730 unit and he paid 3644/- and not as stated by the complainant. The complainant has not paid the consumption charges and thereby the service was disconnected on his own fault not on the fault of the opposite parties.
10. There is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties and there was no mental agony and physical strain and loss as alleged by the complainant and therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
11. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complaint, the proof Affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. While so on the side of the opposite parties proof Affidavit is filed but no document filed on their side.
12.At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
13. Written arguments filed and oral argument also adduced on both sides.
14. Point No.1:-
In respect of this point, it is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties have fixed an erratic meter made wrong entries in the consumer card pertaining to the S.C.No.551-001-452 and ordered to pay Rs.14,967/- with RC., BPSC charges and thereby caused negligence and deficiency of service in their service and caused mental agony to the complainant.
15. At the same time, it is completely denied all the allegations by the opposite parties 1to 3 as alleged in the complaint by the complainant and in fact there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to3. If it is so, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant has come forward to prove the allegations by means of acceptable and cogent evidence which is the prime duty of the complainant.
16. At the outset, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant through his proof Affidavit that the assessment in respect of the S.Cs.No.551-001-452 as on 20.07.2014 was Rs.790/- and Rs.3335/- on 25.09.2014 was paid for the subsequent periods. Thereafter the assessment as on 25.05.2015 the units consumed shown as 1120 and the same charged to the tune of Rs.6,222/- and therefore the complainant had paid the amount and lodged a complaint to the opposite party about the erratic running of the meter and the electric consumer card is marked as Ex.A1. It is further narrated by the complainant that as per the complaint a new meter fixed on 23.09.2015 and the endorsement made on the reading card stating that as per the new meter 886 units was consumed for the assessment on 25.07.2015. It is charged to a sum of Rs.4,678/- and the complainant forced to pay the said amount and in fact on 25.05.2015, the meter reading was 22830 units but on 25.07.2015 without changing the new meter as stated on 09.06.2015 the units came down to 710 and if it is so, when the new meter was fixed only on 23.09.2015. Then how the assessor noted the unit reading as 710 on 25.07.2015 has not been explained by the opposite parties. Similarly the reading as on 23.09.2015 and 23.11.2015 the reading was only for Rs.30/- and the same was paid by the complainant. In the same manner as per the assessment on 23.01.2016, a sum of Rs.730/- was paid as per reading and thus as on 23.01.2016 there was no due.
17. In such a situation without any basis the opposite parties endorsed 2300 units have been consumed, in connection with the S.Cs.No.551-001-452 and demand exorbitant amount of Rs.13960/- dated as on 25.04.2016 which is clear case of deficiency of service. It is further stated by the complainant that he sent a representation to the 1st opposite party and in turn the 1st opposite party sent Ex.A2 enquiry notice to the complainant for appearance on 17.11.2016 which are marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 respectively and in this connection copy of the enquiry report is marked as Ex.A8 which clearly shows that there is a fault on op2 and op3. That in 1st opposite party sent Ex.A5 letter demand to pay Rs.14,967/- with RC., BPSC charges is not correct and the account summary are marked as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7.
18. While being so, on careful perusal of the proof Affidavit produced on the side of the opposite parties1to3 for their evidence that it is not correct to say that they are over assessed for the month of May and in fact there is no fault in the meter, in fact it is in good and working condition and the same was changed on 09.06.2015 but not on 25.07.2015 as stated by the complainant. It is further deposed that the amount of Rs.14,967/- was correctly calculated as per the unit reading which are noted 2810 for the month of January to May -2016 and no wrong reading as alleged by the complainant, since the complainant was not paid the said amount who is a defaulter and the service connection was disconnected on his fault and not on the fault of the opposite parties.
19. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side from the Ex.A8 the enquiry report it is seen from the page No.5 it is read as follows:-
Efu;Nthu; tpsf;fk; mspj;jy;
ehd; Gfhu; mspj;j gpd; jf;f eltbf;if vLj;J epthuzk; nfhLj;J ,Wjpj;njhifapid njuptpj;jhy; gzk; fl;l rk;kjpf;fpNwd;.
tprhuiz mYtyu;-fzf;fPl;lhsh; tpsf;fk; mspj;jy;
30.11.2015 md;W n[a;Fkhu; Mfpa jhq;fs; 551-001-452 ,jd; fzf;fPl;il jhq;fs;jhd; nra;jPu;fsh?
fzf;fPl;lhsh; tpsf;fk; mspj;jy;
kioahf ,Ue;j fhuzj;jpdhy; Neubahf kpd; mstpid ghu;j;J fzf;fPL nra;aKbatpy;iy. Mjyhy; fzf;fPL nra;ahky; me;j khjj;jpy; ,Ue;j midj;J ,izg;GfSf;Fk; ehDk; jpU godp fzf;fPl;lhsu; mtu;fSk; Ke;ija khjj;jpy; cs;s fzf;fPl;L msitNa gjpT nra;Njhk;
tprhuid mYtyh;-fzf;ffPl;L Ma;thsu;
Nkw;fz;l tpraj;ij jhq;fs; Ma;Tf;F cl;gLj;jpdPu;fsh?
f.M-t.m
kioapd; fhuzkhf Ma;T nra;atpy;iy.
tp.m-f.M
28.01.2016 md;W jpU godp fzf;fPl;lhsu; Nkw;fz;l kpd; ,izg;gpy; 320 Kwh msT vd;W gjptpl;Ls;shu; Mdhy; MRT download regard- y; 1408.32 vd;W gjpthfp cs;sJ. ,ij Vd; Ma;Tf;F cl;gLj;jtpy;iy.
20. At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that in respect of the S.Cs.No.551-001-452 after due payment of the consumed charges the service connection was disconnected on 19.01.2016 and the payment of the same has been received on 23.01.2016. It is further noted that the complainant as stated the service connection pertaining to the 551-001-452 also disconnected but not restored that there is no documents shows that the service connection for the above said No.551-001-452 has been disconnected and thereby the above said averment in the complaint is very much of vogue in manner. It goes without saying that such kind of disconnection has not been pleaded which clearly shows that without pleading no relief can be sought, which is the settled position of law.
21. At this instance, the next point to be taken into consideration as to whether the opposite party has wrongly noted the reading with regard to S.C.No.551-001-452 as 886 unit charges huge amount of Rs.4678/-. Regarding this fact, there is not disputed. Such being so, the Ex.A2 itself shown very clear that the inspection done on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant on 30.03.2016. It is learnt that some error has been committed in calculating in S.C.No.551-001-452 and for which it is ordered for enquiry. In continuation, the enquiry conducted by the 1st opposite party and passed the order which is marked as Ex.A5 by which the assessment done by the 2nd opposite party is collected the amount arrived for the consuming charges to the tune of Rs.14,967/- as also correctly calculated and the same was downloaded from the computer. In such circumstances, in order to substantiate the said correct assessment and calculation, not even a single document has been filed on the side of the opposite parties, Since the same has been disputed by the complainant. Moreover on careful perusal of the contention raised the written version as well as the proof Affidavit, it is learnt that at the time of giving complaint by the complainant, a letter which is marked as Ex.A2 sent to the complainant herein by the 1st opposite party it is clearly stated that there was some mistake committed in the service connection of the complainant and ordered for enquiry. Per contra, the Ex.A5 has been issued as if the assessment of the conclusion is found correct which clearly creates the doubt on the version of the opposite parties
22. Such being so, from the Ex.A8 it is categorically admitted by the Reading Inspector ( fzf;fPl;L Ma;thsu; ) during the enquiry as follows
kioahf ,Ue;j fhuzj;jpdhy; Neubahf kpd; mstpid ghu;j;J fzf;fPL nra;aKbatpy;iy. Mjyhy; fzf;fPL nra;ahky; me;j khjj;jpy; ,Ue;j midj;J ,izg;GfSf;Fk; ehDk; jpU godp fzf;fPl;lhsu; mtu;fSk; Ke;ija khjj;jpy; cs;s fzf;fPl;L msitNa gjpT nra;Njhk;
The above version also clearly reveals the fact that the Reading Inspector (fzf;fPl;L Ma;thsu;) has not taken the reading in person and assessed the amount as if in the previous month. Similarly, it is averred by the opposite parties that there is an error in the computer reading but to that effect also no iota of evidence adduced on the side of the opposite parties. Moreover, the written version as well as his proof Affidavit there is no specific denial about the allegations made by the complainant in respect of the service connection No.550-001-452. Note only that, the charges of RC., and BPSC also not explained by the opposite parties.
23. From the above all facts and discussions, it is crystal clear that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to3 and the same has been proved by the complainant by means of acceptable and cogent evidence. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
24. Point No.2:-
The complainant sought relief for the cancellation of the order passed by the opposite parties to pay Rs.14.967/- and compensation. Regarding this compensation, it is learnt from the evidence that though the complainant averred that the service connection No.551-001-452 was disconnected by the opposite parties 1to3 but in fact there is no such disconnection for the above said service connection belong to the complainant. The service connection 551-001-1347 disconnected and the same was restored by the opposite parties and payment of the arrear amount of the consuming charges on 23.01.2016 also there is no concrete evidence to show that the service connection 551-001-452 was disconnected on the side of the complainant. Therefore it is crystal clear that the complainant is no way affected as narrated by the complainant because of the disconnection made by the opposite party in connection with the service connection No.551-001-452. Therefore, there is no question of suffering of mental agony and other loss. Moreover, till date the complainant has not paid the above said amount and thereby no loss of money, etc., to the complainant. Hence this Forum concludes that no need to award any compensation to the complaint. At the same time as per the view arrived in point No.1 the complainant is entitled for the cancellation of the order to pay Rs.14,967/- and also reasonable cost for litigation to the complainant. Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, this Forum is ordered to cancel the demand by opposite parties 1to3 to pay a sum of Rs.14,967/-with R.C., BPSC as prayed by the complainant in respect of the S.C.No.551-001-452 and thereby the complainant is not entitled to pay the said amount and the opposite parties 1to3 are jointly and severally are directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards litigation expenses. Regarding the relief of compensation sought for by the complainant is dismissed.
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of the order, failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
Dictated by the president to the stent-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 26th October 2018.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | ……… | Consumer card, No.551-001-452 | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 04.04.2016 | 1st opposite party letter to the complainant. | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | 17.11.2016 | 1st opposite party letter to the complainant | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 07.11.2016 | Enquiry proceeding copy | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 05.01.2017 | 1stopposite party letter to the complainant | Xerox |
Ex.A6 | | Account summary | Xerox |
Ex.A7 | | Account Summary | Xerox |
ExA8 | 17.11.2016 | Enquiry report | Xerox |
List of document filed by the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
